Emerging Issues in Higher Education Sector

8/8/2019 Emerging Issues in Higher Education Sector

1/27

1

Higher Educationin India

Emerging Issues Related toAccess, Inclusiveness

and Quality

Sukhadeo ThoratChairman

University Grant CommissionNew Delhi

Nehru Memorial Lecture

University of Mumbai ,Mumbai

November ,24,2006


2/27

2

Higher Education in IndiaEmerging Issues Related to Access, Inclusiveness and Quality

Sukhadeo Thorat

Introduction

It is little more than half a century ever since the government initiated a planneddevelopment of higher education in the country particularly with the establishment ofUniversity Grants Commission in 1953. Thus early 1950s is an important referencepoints from which we could look back at our progress of higher education.An Approach to the 11th Five Year Plan is being formulated. Currently the issue ofhigher education is being discussed at various level .In this context in this NehruMemorial Lecture I, wish reflect on the progress of higher education in the country.Several issues have figured in the discussion on the higher education but among thoserelating to Access, Equity and Quality are the most important which have prominentlyfigured in the current discussion. Given the importance of these issues I wish to dealwith these three issues.In doing so I take a review of achievement ; discuss the emerging need of highereducation and ponder over the possible directions for further advancement of thehigher education in the country.

Governing Goals of Higher education

It is necessary to recognized that the present approach towards higher education isgoverned by the National policy on Education of 1986 and Program of Action of 1992,

.The 1986 policy and Action Plan of 1992 was based on the two land marks reportnamely ,the University Education Commission of 1948-49 (popularly known asRadhakrishnan Commission ), and the Education Commission of 1964-66,( popularlyknown as Kothari Commission Report).These two landmark reports in fact laid downthe basic framework for the National policy for higher education in the country.

The University Education Report had set goals for development of higher education inthe country. While articulating these goals Radakrishnan Commission on UniversityEducation, 1948-49 put it in following words :

The most important and urgent reform needed in education is totransform it, to endeavor to relate it to the life, needs and aspirations of the

people and thereby make it the powerful instrument of social, economicand cultural transformation necessary for the realization of the nationalgoals. For this purpose, education should be developed so as to increaseproductivity, achieve social and national integration, accelerate theprocess of modernization and cultivate social, moral and spiritualvalues.2


3/27

3

The National Policy on higher education of 1986 translate this vision of Radhakrishnanand Kothari Commission in five principles goals for higher education which includeGreater Access, Equal access (or equity), Quality and excellence, Relevance andpromotion of social Values .

The policy directions and actions covered in 1992 Program of Action have been

developed in a manner such that it translate these goals in to practice.Given the importance of first three goals, namely Access, Equal Access and quality. Iconfine the discussion to these three issues. But before I do let us take the over view ofthe created institutional capacity for higher education since the establishment ofUniversity Grant commission in 1953.

Expansion in Higher education Institutional Capacity

Since the early 1950s higher education has been diversified and extended its reachand coverage quite significantly.

At the time of independence, 1947, the size of higher education system in terms of number ofeducational institutions, and teachers was meager but since that time there has been an

exponential increase in three indicators of higher education, namely the number of educational

institutions, teachers and students .

The number of universities has increased from 20 in 1947 to about 357 in 2005indicating a thirteen-fold increase.There are now 20 Central Universities, 217 State Universities, 106 Deemed to beUniversities, and 13 Institutes of National Importance established through Centrallegislation and .5 Institutions established through State legislation,

The number of colleges increased from 500 in 1947 to 17,625 in 2005, indicatingtwenty-six-fold increase.

In the spheres of technical education by 2004 we had about 1265 engineering andtechnology collages, 320 pharmacies, 107 Architecture, 40 hotel management, makinga total about 1749 institutions. In respect of post graduate educational institutions thereare 958 MBA/PGDM and 1034 MCA in 2004.

Similarly the number of teachers has increased from 700 in 1950 to 4.72 Lakhs in 2005.

Thus there has been several fold increase in the educational institutions and number ofteachers. With this progress in the educational infrastructure in terms of institutions and

faculty, we except improvement in the level of higher education in terms of aggregateaccess, access to disadvantage groups and the quality of higher education.

Let us discuss the progress with respect to these indicators of higher educationdevelopment.


4/27

4

Present Status with respect to Access -Enrolment at Aggregate level

The extent of higher education is generally measured by enrolment ratio in highereducation.

Three alternative methods are used to estimate the extend of access to higher

education namely Gross Enrolment ratio (GER),Net enrolment ratio (NER) andEnrolment of Eligible ( EER)The GER measure the access level by taking the ratio of persons in all age groupenrolled in various programs to total population in age group of 18 to 23. The NERmeasures the level of enrolment for age specific groups namely those in age group of18 to 23. While the EER measure the level of enrolment of those who completed highersecondary level education. These three concepts thus look at the access to highereducation from three different angles.

Three alternative sources namely Selected Education Statistics, (SES) Nationalsample Survey (NSS) and Population Census (PC) provides data on number ofstudent enrolment.

In 1950-51 the enrolment rate was 0.7%, which increased to 1.4% in 1960-61.

For the early 2000 the GER based on the SES is 8. % .The NSS and PC arrived atenrolment ratio of about 10% and 14% respectively. Thus the SES data under reportsgross enrolment rate by 4-5%. For 2003/4 the GER work out to 9% ,13.22% and14.48% respectively .

The SES under estimates enrolment rates because of the under-reporting of enrolmentin unrecognized institutions and also due to non-reporting of enrolment data on anannual basis by some of the State governments. Extrapolations are used to fill thegaps arising from non-reporting by some of the States. The problem with the NSS andalso census data is that as it is collected from households, it is likely to over estimatethe student enrolment in colleges and universities as it might include those who aredoing diploma or training programmes (e.g. computer training) in unrecognizedinstitutions also. A further problem with the population Census data is that it does notdistinguish between enrolment in professional degree and diploma programmes.

The population in the age group of 18-23 and number of students enrolled in Collegesand Universities (graduate and above) and vocational institutions (Diploma/certificate)are given in table In 2003/4 the enrolment in graduate and above (degree) level is104..9 lakhs from SES and 161.1 lakhs from NSS AND 182.3 lakhs from population

census . The higher estimates from the Census may be due to the inclusion ofenrolment in vocational and professional courses, which include both degree, diplomaand certificate. The vocations and professions include engineering (ITI, polytechnic),agriculture, medicine, management, law, teaching etc.

A wide variation is observed in the estimates of enrolment in diploma/certificate coursesfrom the three sources. The enrolment at the certificate/diploma (vocational, teachertraining etc.) level is 10 lakhs, 25 lakhs and 17 lakhs respectively from SES, NSS and


5/27

5

Census sources. The coverage of SES in the case of degree/diploma would have beenlimited as it excludes enrolment in unrecognized institutions. Both NSS and Censussources include enrolment in unrecognized vocational institutions and hence theestimates turn out to be higher than the SES. As mentioned above, Census dataincluded vocational diploma along with professional degree yielding a figure lower thanthe NSS.

Equity in Access - Enrolment at disaggregate level -

After having assessed the progress at aggregate level we now look at the progress withrespect to certain groups and reflect on the situation with respect to inter-groupdisparities of multiple natures. The present allows us to study the disparities between(a) rural and urban (2) Inter-State (2) Inter-caste (3) Inter-religion (4) Male-female (5)occupation group (6) and Poor and nonpoor.

Rural and Urban

There are significant disparities in enrolment ratio between rural and urban area. In

2003/4 the GER for rural and urban area was 7.76% and 27.20% respectively-GER inurban area being four times higher compared with rural area.

The population census came up with the GER of 8.99% for rural area and 24.52% forurban area in 2001 - the GER in rural area being all most three time lower comparedwith urban area.

The EER worked out to 51.1% for rural and 66% for urban area-latter being higher byabout 15% points.

Inter-State Variation

There are considerable inter-state variation in the level of higher education. While theGER at aggregate level is about 13%, it is more than national average in state likeNagaland (38.6%), Goa (27.3%), Kerala (24.2%), Manipur ( 24.7%), H.P.(20.0%) andJ&K, T.N. and Pondicherry (with 18%).

By national comparison the GER is lower than the national average in state like Tripura(3.2%), Assam (6.6%), Meghalaya (7.2%), Chattisgarh (7.6%), Orissa (8.2%) ,Jharkand(10.3%),West Bengal (9.7%), Bihar (10%), Sikkim (10.8%), and Rajastan (11%).

The enrolment ratio based on eligible student (ERE) is useful estimate as it indicatesthe access to education to those who have completed the higher secondary stage. In

2003/4 about 59 % of those who completed higher secondary entered in highereducation stream. These ratio is higher than the national average by substantialmargin in Mizoram (87.1%), Manipur(87.7%), Nagaland (85.6%), J&K (76.6%) andKerala (70.6%). By national comparison the ratio is much lower, in Tripura (37.8%),Chattishgarh (49.6%), Orissa (50.2%), Arunachal Pradesh (53.5%). In rest of the majorstates the ratio was around national average of 59%.


6/27

6

Table 4 (a)

Enrolment Ratio for Population Sub-Groups ( figure in %)

GER NER EER

Source/Year SES

2006-07

Census

2001

NSS

2003

NSS

2003

NSS

2003

All 9.7 13.8 13.2 13.2 59.0

Gender

Male 11.1 17.1 15.3 12.3 62.9

Female 7.9 10.2 11.0 8.7 54.1

Caste

Schedule

Tribes

4.6 7.5 5.0 4.0 57.4

Schedule

Castes

7.0 8.4 7.5 5.9 56.4

OBC 11.34

Others 24.89Religion

Hindu 12.0 9.0 57.0

Muslim 8.2 6.3 58.1

Other

Religion

30.9 24.3 65.8

Rural/Urban

Rural 9.0 7.8 6.1 51.5

Urban

Poor ( 2000)

Non poor

24.5 27.2

2.43

12.81

21.9 66.0

Source : Computed from Employment and Unemployment Survey, 1999-2000, NSSO, GOI

Inter-Group Disparities

After having examined the enrolment rate at the aggregate level we now look at thesame by caste, religious and gender.

Inter caste

In 2003-04, the GER was about 13.22% at over all level. However there are significantdisparities across social groups. The GER is much lower for ST, SC, and OBC ascompared with others (that is non-SC/ST/OBC), its being 5%, 7.51%, 11.34% and24.89% respectively. Thus the GER for ST was five times, of SC about three times andof OBC about two times less compare with non-SC/ST/O BC population.


7/27

7

Between the SC/ST and OBC, however the GER was higher for OBC. The GER ofOBC was higher by six percentage point compared with ST and about four percentagepoints higher compared to SC. Between SC and ST, the GER was higher for the SCby about 2.51 percentage point. Thus the GER was the lowest for ST.

The estimates based on the population census for 2001 also revealed disparitiesacross the social groups in GER. For instance, as against the GER of 15.57% forgeneral Hindu population (non -SC/ST ), the GER for SC and ST was 8.39% and 7.46%respectively. The GER for the general Hindu population being higher by about twotimes compared with SC and ST.

In the case of EER the pattern is somewhat different. The ERE in 2003-04 was 54.4%for ST, 57% for SC, 54.8 % for OBC and 62.5% for the other Hindu population. Thusthe ERE of SC, ST and OBC was lower as compare to the general Hindu population. Itneeds to be mentioned that the differences in the EER between SC, ST, OBC weremarginal. The OBC seems to be almost on par with SC and ST with respect to ERE.This implies that although the OBC managed to have higher enrolment rate, based on

GER, compared with SC and ST, never the less, of those who managed to completehigher secondary stage, a small proportion of them entered into the higher educationstream compared to the higher caste.

Caste, religion -Inter face

It is evident that SC/ST/OBC persons belonging to Hindu religion lack far behind thehigher caste Hindu population in term of access to higher education, in so far as theenrolment ratio is generally lower for these three social groups compared to the generalHindu population.

It is also necessary to mention that SC/ST/OBC from other religious back groundnamely Muslim, Christian and Sikh religion also suffered from lower access to highereducation as compared with their higher caste counter part from these religion.

For instance, in 2003-04 the GER of OBC Muslim was 7 % as compared with 9% forother Muslim. Similar disparities prevail in the case SC Christians and non-SC/STChristian. In the case of Sikh SC the GER was only 7% compared with 21% for non-SC Sikh population. Similarly the GER of tribal christen was 21.73 % compared to37.28% for non-tribal Christian.

Similar differences are observed in the case of Eligible enrolment ratio (EER) . TheEER for OBC Muslim is lower (50.16%) as compared with other Muslim ( 63%).The

EER is much lower for the Sikh SC as compared with non-SC Sikh the rate being20.60% and 52% respectively in 2003.

It is thus evident from these results that the SC from all religion suffered from a loweraccess to higher education as compared with their high caste counterpart .Howeverbetween the various religious groups, SC from some religious groups suffer more inaccess to higher education than other. For instance the GER of SC Buddhist isrelatively high (14%) followed by SC Christian (9.97%), SC Hindu (4.88%) and SC Sikh


8/27

8

(2.33%). The SC Buddhist and SC Christian seem to perform better with respect toaccess to higher education as compared with their counter part from Hindu and Sikhreligion. However the limitation of sample size in case of SC Buddhist and Christianneed to be kept in mind.

Inter-religion differences

Disparities are also evidence in enrolment ratio between religious groups in 2003-04.In general the GER is higher for the persons belonging to Jainism followed byChristians, Sikh/Buddhist, Hindus and Muslims. The GER for Jains, Christians,Sikhs/Buddhists, Hindu and Islam is 57.43%, 27.29%, and 15.0%, 13.47% and 8.19%respectively. The GER was the lowest for the Muslim followed by Hindu.

In the case of EER also similar inter-religion differences are observed. The Jain andthe Christians came on the top with 74.7% and 71.3% EER respectively. Next comethe Buddhist and Hindus with about 60%. The EER is the lowest for the Sikhs with52.8%.

Gender Differences

The access to higher education is also low for girls as compared with boys. The GERbeing 15.25% for male and 11% for female. Gender disparity in enrolment ratio ismainly because of visible differences in rural areas. In urban the gender differences areminimal.

Significant male-female disparities also exist in the enrolment ratio for the eligiblestudent (EER). In 2003-04, the EER is 62.9% and 54.1% for male and femalerespectively, the female EER being lower by nine percentage points. Unlike GER thedifferences in the male and female EER are visible both in rural and urban areas.

Gender Caste Religion Interface

It needs to be recognized that although the enrolment ratio are generally lower for thefemale compared to the male, the female belonging to the lower caste and somereligious groups suffer more in access to higher education than others.

For instance in 2000, as against the overall average of 9.4% for the female, the GERwas 2.4% for ST female followed by 4.7% for SC female, 7.6% for OBC female and17.2% for other female. Thus the GER for ST female was seven times less compare tothe higher caste female. Similarly, the GER of the SC female was lower by about fourtimes compared with higher caste female.

In the case of religious group, the Muslim women suffer the most. The GER of Muslimfemale was 6.3% compared to 10.8% for Hindu female, 12.7% for Sikh/Buddhistfemale, 20% for Christian and 48% for Jain female.

In the case of enrolment ratio for eligible (EER) the inter-caste disparities in the femaleare particularly significant. The EER for SC/OBC female was the lowest with about50% compared to 57% for ST /other high caste female.


9/27

9

Similarly, the EER was the lowest for the Muslim female compared with the femalebelonging to other religion. The EER was 48% for Muslim female -about 54% forHindu/Buddhist female, 56% for Sikh and about 69% for Jain/Christian female.

Poor Non poor

There are also significant differences in enrolment rate among the poor and non-poor.In 1999-2000 the GER for the poor was 2.4 % as against 12.91 % for non-poor ,theaverage being 10.10% .The GER for the poor was almost twelve time lower comparedwith non poor.

Similar disparities are evident in rural and urban area. In rural and urban area the GERfor poor was 1.30 % and 5.51%, quite low compared with 7.12% and 27.15% for non poor respectively for rural and urban area.

With in the poor however the GER was the lowest among the poor belonging to ST andSC, followed by OBC and others. The GER for poor belonging to ST, SC, OBC andOther is 1.55%, 1.89%, 2.30%, and 3.58 respectively.

Similar pattern is observed for poor in rural and urban area .In rural area the GER is thelowest for ST with only 1.11% followed by 1.35% for SC, 1.13 for OBC and 1.66% forOthers the overall GER being 1.30% .

In urban area the GER for the urban poor is 3.86%, 4.78% 5.16% and 7% respectivelyfor SC, ST, OBC and Others the average being 5.51%.

Even among the non-poor the GER for the ST, SC and OBC is lower as compared withothers. For instance the GER is 6.68%, 9.70%, 8.69%, and 19.73% for SC, ST, OBCand Other respectively while all India average is 12.81%.

Occupation and Enrolment

Self Employed and Wage Labor

Differences in gross enrolment rate are also equally clear across occupation groups inrural and urban area. In rural area the GER is generally higher for self employedhousehold engaged in farm and non farm economic activity as compared with thosewho worked as wage labour in farm and non farm activities. For instance the GER forthose engaged in farm and non farm activities as self employed was about 5% ascompared with 1.41% for farm wage labour and 3% for non farm wage labour. In2000, the GER for Farm Wage Labour being particularly low.

Similarly, in urban area the GER is clearly much higher for those engaged in business,regular salaried and other activities as compared with casual labour. The GER was50%, 28%, 15.74% and only 3.26% respectively for other, self employed, regularsalaried and casual wage labor. The GER being particularly low for casual wage labor.

Thus both in rural and urban area the enrolment rate for the wage (casual) labour wasthe lowest as compared with self employed and regular wage earner and salaried. TheGER is particularly low for Form Wage Labour.


10/27

10

Caste Occupation interface

It is to be noted that among the occupation group the enrolment is particularly low forST, SC, and OBC as compared with higher caste. Thus although GER is generallylower for wage labour, it particularly low for SC/ST compared with others group. For

instance as against 1.41% at over all level for wage labor in rural area, the ratio is0.67%, 1.63%, 1.16% and 1.93% for ST, SC ,OBC and other wage labor respectively.

Similarly in urban area the GER for casual labor is 3.26% at over all level as against1.53%, 2.61%, 3.34 and 4.30% for ST, SC, OBC and other wage labor respectively.

Similar inter-caste differences are observed in case of self employed cultivator(farmer) in rural and urban area - the GER for SC/ST/OBC being much lower comparedwith others. For instance in rural area as against the GER of 5.64% at over all level forself employed in agriculture in rural area the ratio is 3.%, 3.95%, 4.21 and 8.33% forST, SC, OBC and other respectively.

In the case of self-employed in non farm activities or business in rural and urban areaalso the GER is lower for the SC/ST compared with other group. In rural area the GERfor self employed (or business groups) is 2.53%, 3.77%, 3.97% and 7.73% forST,SC,OBC and Other .In urban area the GER for self employed group among the ST,SC, OBC and Other work out to 6.15%, 7.37%, 10.% and 22% respectively indicatingmuch lower rate for SC/ST .

Occupation, caste and poverty interface

Among the self employed and wage labor the enrolment is particularly low for the poorhousehold among them. For instance the enrolment rate at over all level for selfemployed cultivator, self employed in non-farm sector, agriculture labour, other labour,other household in rural area is 5.17%, 1.41%, 2.99%, 5.64%, 18.55% respectivelycompared with 1.43%, 0.86%, 0.37%, 1.78%, 2.98%, 1.30% for poor self employedcultivator, self employed in non-farm sector, agriculture labour, other labour, otherhousehold in that order.

Similarly in urban area while the enrolment rate at over all level is 15.74%, 28.10%,3.26%, 50.15% for self employed, regular salaried, casual labour and other householdrespectively, the same for the poor household belonging to self employed, regularsalaried, casual labour and other household is 4.59%, 8.60%, 2.38% and 14.39%respectively.

In other word although the enrolment is lowest among the poor casual wage labourhousehold in rural and urban area (agriculture labour, other labour in rural and urbanarea .86%, .37% and 2.38 respectively), it is particularly low among the same poorgroup from the ST/ST/OBC. The enrolment rate being 0.9%, .01% and .93% foragriculatural labour for ST, SC and OBC respectively. Similarly it is nil for ST and SC.52 % for OBC Casual non-farm wage labour in rural area.


11/27

11

In Urban area the enrolment rate for poor casual labour is .66% for ST ,2.61 % for SCand 3.92% for OBC.

To sum up the pattern relating to enrolment following pattern emerged fairly clearly in2003-4 and in some cases for 1999-2000.

1) Aggregate-While the GER based on population census and NSS is about, 13%,during 2000/01. The GER based on the education statistics is 9.39%. The educationalstatistics estimate of GRE are on lower side compared with population census andNSS estimate probably because latter two sources include both public and privateinstitutions, while former covered only public institutions .

2) Rural Urban-There are significant disparities in enrolment ratio between ruraland urban area .The GER for rural and urban area in 2003/4 are 7.76 % and 27.20%respectively. The GER in urban area was about four times higher compared with ruralarea.

3) Inter-state - Similarly there are considerable inter-regional variation in the levelof higher education. The GER and NER were more than national average instate like Nagaland, Goa Kerala, Manipur, H.P and J&K, T.N. and Pondcharyand lower than national average in Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya, Chattisgarh,Orissa, Jharkand, West Bengal, Bihar, Sikkim and Rajasthan.

4) Inter-caste differences -The GER of SC, ST and OBC is lower as comparedwith the general Hindu population. Between them however the GER is lowest forST ,followed by SC and OBC . In the case of EER the difference between SC,ST, OBC are marginal and the OBC are almost on par with SC and ST.

It is also necessary to mention that SC/ST/OBC from other religion such as Muslim,Christian and Sikh religion also suffered from lower access to higher education ascompared with their higher caste counter part from these religions. In general the SCBuddhist and SC Christian seem to be doing better as compared with their Hindu,Muslim and Sikh counterpart.

5) Inter-religion difference - In general the GER is higher for the personsbelonging to Jainism (57%) followed by Christians (27.29%), Sikh/Buddhist (15%),Hindus (13.47%) and Muslims (8.19%). Thus the GER is the lowest for the Muslim.

6) Male-female -Gender disparities in the enrolment ratio are also clearly visible.

The gender differences in gross enrolment ratio are mainly due to disparities in the ruralarea as the gender gap is insignificant in urban area.

It need to be recognized that although the enrolment ratio are generally lower forthe female compared to the male, the female belonging to the ST /SC and those fromIslam and Hindu religion suffer more in access to higher education than female fromother religious groups.


12/27

12

Poor- Non poor

The GER is generally lower for poor compared with non - poor household.Among the poor, however the GER is much lower for SC /ST followed by OBC andOther.

Self employed and Casual Labor

The GER is also generally higher for self employed (business group) and regularsalaried household as compared with casual wage labour engaged in farm or non farmactivities in rural and urban area. The GER is the lowest among the poor casual labourhousehold engaged in farm activities in rural area and in non-form activities in both ruraland urban areas.

Quality and Excellence

The improvement in the enrolment rate has been made possible due to significantexpansion of higher education institutions in India. The question is about the quality of

outcome in terms of academic standard of student, quality of research, innovativenessand creativity.What is the quality and excellence level of our educational system?There is limited literature on the estimate of quality and excellence of our university andcollages system. In the absence of the studies I wish to present the status of qualityand excellence with the help of conceptual and methodological framework developedand used by UGC to quantify the quality and excellence of the universities and collagesengaged in higher education a sector which is the backbone of our higher educationsystem. As we will see this provide only partial picture of the quality of university andcollege sector.

To regulate and promote the quality and excellence, the UGC has made distinctionbetween quality and an excellence in conceptual terms. And therefore separateindicators are used to measure quality and excellence. The UGCs measures forexcellence are in the nature of addition to the measures the quality ..

Quality of University and Collage education system

As far as the quality is concern the UGC has laid down indicators under provision ofwhat it called, 2(f) and 12 (b). These two together assess the minimum qualityrequirement to provide the grants to the universities and collages. The college isrecognized under 2(f) if it is a register body with a temporary affiliation and carryingunder graduate program. The recognition under 12(b) is granted provided the college

has a permanent affiliation with university. The university provides permanent affiliationafter satisfying the required minimum conditions.

Thus 2(f) & 12(b) is the initial and presumably the minimum framework of regulation ofquality for the colleges.


13/27

13

Beside the UGC has set up National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) toassess the quality of higher education institutions, which used fairly expanded criteria ofquality for universities and collages in the country.

Let us discuss the quality of university and college sector.

College Sector

Let us first discuss the college sector. As on today (February, 2006), there are about17625 colleges in the country. Out of these , about 14000 come under purview ofUGCs system. This account for about 80% of the total colleges in the country.

Out of this, about 5589 are included under Section 2(f) and of them 5273 haverecognized under Section 12(B) of the UGC Act - making them eligible for UGCassistance. Thus of about total of 14000 colleges about 40% are recognized under 2(f)and about 38% under 12(b).

Alternatively, it means that about 60% of collages (equivalent to 8411) in the countryare not assessed even with the minimum criterion of 2(f) and 12 (b) (equivalent to8727). Therefore, we cannot comment on the quality of almost 60% of the collegescoming under the purview of UGC.

The NAAC is involved in the assessment of quality and accreditation of these colleges,recognized under 2(f) & 12(b). The NAAC used an expanded criterion of qualitymeasurement. In 2006 of the total colleges which come under 2(f) & 12(b) about 2780have been assessed and accredited by the NAAC.

The percentage of accredited collages thus account about 57% of the colleges coveredunder 2(f) & 12(b).

But accredited collages account only 18% of the total colleges (i.e. 14000), which fallunder the purview of UGC. Thus we dont have much idea about 82% of the 14000 inthe country with the elaborated criterion of measurement of quality of NAAC . .

Thus as per the criterion of UGC of 2 (f), and 12(b) of total of 14000 collegesabout 40% are assessed for minimum criterion of quality and hence we knowlittle about the quality of the remaining 60% of the collages.

With an extended criterion of NAAC only 18% of total of 14000 collages are assessedfor quality. They account 57% of collages recognized by UGC under 2(f) and 12 (b).What is the quality status of the collages assessed by NAAC?The NAAC gradation provides some idea about the quality status of the college sector.The NAAC gradation indicate that 245 colleges are in A range (A++, A+ and A), 1785 inB range (B++, B and B-) and 668 in C range (C++ C and C-). There could berespectively graded as high, medium and low quality colleges which constitute 9%, 66%and 25% respectively.


14/27

14

University Sector

Before giving grant UGC assesses the quality of these universities by some measuresof quality. About 164 are recognized under 12(B) and, therefore, entitled to receivegrants. This means about 50% of the Universities are assessed for some academic

standard and quality under 12(B) rule. The remaining half of the universities are notassessed. Therefore, we dont have much idea about the quality.

Out of 164 Universities about 128 are assessed with more elaborated indicators ofquality by NAAC. Such universities account for about 78% of the universities supportedby the UGC (i.e. 164) only 40% of the total universities .

To summarize the situation, thus out of total of 317 universities about 50% of them (thatis 164) have been assessed for minimum quality under (12 b) and about 40% ( that is128) have been assessed for more elaborate criteria of quality of NAAC. Thus about 50to 60 % of the universities are not properly assessed for quality of education that theyoffered.

Measurement of ExcellenceFor an assessment of excellence, the UGC has developed a concept of what is called institutions with potential for excellence. The UGC by some measurable indicators ofexcellence identifies

(a) The universities as whole with potential for excellence.(b) The Centers with specialized programs in the universities with potential for

excellence.(c) The Departments with in the universities with potential for excellence and(d) The Collages with potential for excellence.

The UGC has recognized 9 universities with potential for excellence accounting only 4% of

total of 237 central and State universities , 12 Centers of Excellence with specific specialization

in 12 universities and 477 Center /department. So far 97 colleges have been identifiedas those with potential for excellence ..

Emerging Issues Related to Access, Inclusiveness and Quality

An over view of the present status of higher education bring out the situation withrespect to the level of enrolment, equity (or inclusiveness) and quality but also the taskahead of us .

Issue Related to increase in Enrolment rate

First issue relates to the enhancement of access to higher education. There has been aconsiderable improvement in the enrolment from one percent in early 1950s to about13% in the 2003. The 13 percent is little more than average for Developing countries,which is 11%. But it is too low compared to 23% of world average or 36.5% forcountries in transaction or 54.6% for Developed countries.


15/27

15

There has been huge increase in the demand for higher education since theindependence. However the increase in demand has not been matched bycorresponding increase in the education infrastructure in term of educational institutionsand other facilities. Due to the demand outstripping the capacity, a large number ofaspirants are also denied access to higher education. This has led to a situation where

institutions are required to manage more students than they afford, leading pressure onthe facilities particularly the State Universities, collages aided as well as unaided.Therefore, in addition to creating new universities and collages the strengthening andexpansion of exiting institutions is equally necessary.

There are issues related to target in 11th Plan. What should be the sustainable target?. If our target is to come closer to world average of 23% we need to expand the intakecapacity during the 11th Plan quite substantially. Increase from 13% to 20% will have tocome both from public and private institutions and require planning for increase ininstitutional capacity both for public and private educational institutions. Definite targetwill have to be set up for government and government-aided institution.. This will have to be done both by expansion in the capacity of existing education

institutions and also by establishing the new ones. The approximate number ofadditional educational institutions is some thing, which will have to be worked out. Bothwill require substantial increase in the public expenditure on higher education.

Enrolment in Higher Education by regions 2001-2 ( in %)

Groups of Countries Gross Enrolment Ratio

Developed Countries 54.6

Countries in Transition 36.5

Developing Countries 11.3

World

India

23.2

(About) 13%

Source Higher Education in the World

The projection made by the Study sponsored by UGC indicate that, theprojected enrolment on the basis of historical growth pattern may not be sufficient tomeet the growing demand and also the need of the Indian economy .As per theprojection the GER will increase from 9.7% in 2006/7 to 11 % to 2011/12. For the sameperiod projection based on NSS data suggests GER increase from 11..2% to 12.8%respectively.

Hence a higher achievable target needs to be envisaged and the 11th plan forhigher education should be geared to attend this target .Thus depending on the source the target would vary from 15% to 18% by the end of11th plan.

Promoting Equity and Inclusiveness


16/27

16

Second important issue, that confront us, relates to multiple disparities across State,rural-urban, male-female, intercaste and inter-religious, poornon poor and betweenoccupation group.

The extent of enrolment is low in rural area compared with urban area and low in some

States. It is particularly low among the ST, SC, OBC compared with higher caste .Theenrolment is low among female compared with male. Among the religious groups, theenrolment is lower among the Muslim and Hindus compared with Jain, Sikh andChristian.

The enrolment is also low among the poor and particularly low among person engagedin some economic activities such wage labor household as compared with thoseengaged in business as self employed.

Thus the group which suffered most from lack of access to higher education are SC,ST, OBC and Muslim in general, but particularly the female from these group inparticular, as also the those engaged as wage labour in rural and urban area. Among

all them, however the poor from these groups suffered most. Among the SC, ST,Muslim, female and wage labour, those from rural area are the worst sufferers.

We thus suffered from multiple disparities. There fore there is need for comprehensivepolicy of inclusiveness, which will to reduce disparity among them.Given the uniqueness of each of these groups,it is necessary that the constrains ofeach of these group are address separately and group specific policies and schemesare developed to bring them on part with others.

Promoting quality

Third issue relates to the quality of higher education. It is important to recognize that asubstantial portion of collages and universities are not assessed for quality andtherefore we dont have full picture of the quality and excellence of university andcollege sector engaged in higher education.

a) Of the total of 14000 colleges which falls under the purview of UGC, only40% and 38% have been brought under 2(f) (about 5589) & 12(b) (about5273) status, which satisfy some minimum educational standard.

This means that about 61% or equivalent to about 8500 collages are

without proper assessment for quality. We do not know much about thequality of these colleges. In fact accredited collages constituted only 20%of the total collages (that is 14000). Most of these colleges are self-financing and without permanent affiliation. It is therefore necessary tobring these colleges under the fold of quality assessment to improve thestandard of college education in the country.


17/27

17

It is necessary to recognized that large portion of the collages remainedout side the support of UGC because they do not full fill the minimum qualityrequirement specified under 12(b) .

The close examination of the sample of 1473 collages brings out thedeficiencies in the physical and academic infrastructure of the collages

(government, private aided and un-added) and the need for their support.Of the total collages 8% are of high quality (A grade), 37% of mediumquality ( B++ and B+) about 36% of lower quality ( B only and C) . Thusbulk of them is of medium to low quality.

It is sticking to note that with respect to all the indicators of physical andacademic infrastructure the high quality collages are in better positioncompared with low quality collages.

For instance the percentage of collages with library, computer center,health center, sport facilities, hostel, guest house, teachers housing,canteen, common room, welfare scheme, Gymnasium, and auditorium.

Seminar rooms is much higher in case of high quality collages ascompared with low quality collages .

Similarly the high quality collages are better place as compared with lowquality collages with respect to academic facilities, which include studentteacher ratio, books per student and per collages, journal per collages,student per computer, and organized workshops/seminars.

It is also observed that of the temporary teacher account about onefourth of the sample collages.

Further it is observed that in the case of high quality collages thepercentages of those with PhD and Phil permanent teacher is relativelyhigh and that of postgraduate is low as compared with the low qualitycollages. Thus the academic quality of teacher in high quality collages isrelatively better compared with the low quality collages .

Thus if the 36% of low quality collages and the 37% medium qualitycollages are to be brought on par with high quality collages, a substantialimprovement is necessary in the physical and academic infrastructure ofthe low and medium quality collages. The investment requirement forquality improvement of collages which are under 12 (b) but sufferedfrom quality and all those without 12 ( b) -,about 60% of total of 14000collages will have to be worked out. This will require substantial public

investment on exiting collages in the country.

As far as university sector is concerned, of total of 317 universities about 50% ofthem (that is 164) have been assessed for minimum quality under (12(B) and about40% (that is 128) have been assessed for more elaborate criteria of quality of NAAC.Thus about 50 to 60% of the universities are not assessed with elaborated criteria ofNAAC..


18/27

18

The sample study by the UGC of about 111 universities which are eligible toreceive the UGC indicate that about 31% false under A grade, 52% under B grade and16% under C grade. It is observed that the A grade universities generally performbetter with respect to number of indicators which include number of department,sanction faculty position, filled up faculty position, number faculty with PhD, number offaculty members, per department, number of books in library .

Therefore with respect to each of the indicators, there is need to improve the position ofB and C grade universities and this will require substantial investment in opening ofnew departments, additional faculty, teacher without PhD to be supported to completedand number of new books to be acquired .

Promoting ExcellenceSo far, the UGC has identified only 9 universities and 97 colleges with potential forexcellence, and they constitute about 6% of the total universities and 2% of thecolleges. Beside about 500 Department, centres and about 12 centres have beenidentified with potential for excellence.We have to recognize that there is interlinkage between quality and excellence. Forexcellence to grow and emerge, at the base quality institutions are necessary . .

Excellence may not emerged without quality education in the vast institutions of higherlearning, namely the universities and colleges.

The university and college education served as a catchments area for some upperlevel specialized institutions to emerge as institutions of excellence. If the quality of theuniversity and college education is neglected it will have limited potential for growth ofexcellence in institutions of learning. If we go by the present evidence, a vast numberof colleges/state university sector is of low to medium quality by NAAC measure.Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve the physical and academic infrastructureof this institutions. This calls for a Revival of college and state university sector. If wehave limited number of universities, departments and collages with a potential forexcellence, it is because the university and college education has suffered from the lackof adequate academic and physical infrastructure.-----------------

Note The estimate of enrolment ratio aggregate and by social groups and somedimensions of quality are based on the on going Studies sponsored by UGC -,Undertaken by Ravi Sriwastwa , S.Sinha,,Sarswati Raju, (Jawaharlal Nehru University,Delhi )Sudhanshu Bhushan ( National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration,Delhi )Ameresh Dubey ,( NCAER,Delhi) Dr.Draiswamy( Madras university ,Madras)and Menon ( Delhi University ),2006

1 The report of The University Education Commission (December 1948-August,1949), Ministry Of Education Govt. of India, 1962,

- Report of the Education Commission 1964-65-Edcation and Nationaldevelopment, National Council of Educational Research and training,1970

- National Policy on Education-1986, (With modifications undertaken in1992), ministry of Human Resource Development, Department ofEducation, Delhi

- National Education Policy on Education-1986 Program of Action 1992,Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education


19/27

19

2 Report of the Education Commission-1964-66, chapter I, Page 41

3 Source - figure for 1950- and 1960 are taken from Report of the EducationCommission 1964-65, chapter xii, page 550 table 12.1 (Enrolment in Higher

Education 1950-51 to 1965-66), and 1983-84 to 2004 from Annual Report20004-2005, UGC, New Delhi, Appendix III PAGE 151,also from Mid TermAppraisal- 11th Plan, Planning Commission

References

1) Ministry of Human Resource Development. Government of India (May 1986) National Policyon Education 1986

2) Ministry of Human Resource Development. Government of India (November 1986) NationalPolicy on Education 1986Programme of Action

3) University Grant Commission ( ) National Policy on Education 1986 ( With ModificationsUndertaken in 1992)

4) Program of Action National Policy on Education 1986 Revised 1992

Table 1 Educational Institutions -2006

(a) Central Universities 20

(b) State Universities 217

(c) Deemed Universities 106

(d) Private Universities

Total Universities

10

353

Institutions of National

Importance

Institutions set up

under State Act

Total

Universities/Institutions

Total Collages

13

5

371

17625


20/27

20

Table 2(a)

Students Enrolment and Gross Enrolment Rate (GER) in Higher Education in India

S.No. Description Data SourceSES NSS Census

1. Estimates for the year 2000-01 1999-2000 2001

2. Estimated Population aged 18-

23 (in 000s)

1133,28 1026,90 1133,28

3. Enrolment in graduate &

above (in 000s)

86,26 85,70 144,30

4. Gross Enrolment Rate (GER) 7.6% 8.3% 12.4%

5. Enrolment in Vocational

Institutes (in 000s)

9,87 25,20 16,60

6. Total enrolment (Degree +

Vocational) (in 000s)

95,13 110,90 160,90

7. GER (Degree + Vocational) 8.5% 10.8% 13.8%

Table 2 (b) Enrolment Ratio By alternative sourcesYears Graduate & Above Technical/Vocational Total Higher Education

Sources SES NSSO Census SES NSSO Census SES NSSO Census

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101983 3.77 6.66 na 0.26(0.62) na na 4.04 7.67 na

1987-88 4.28 7.51 na 0.41(0.87) na na 4.69 8.57 na

1991 4.22 na na 0.40(0.83) na na 4.63 na 10.95

1993-94 4.35 6.45 na 0.45(0.90) na na 4.80 8.85 11.74*1999-00 6.77 7.71 na 0.45(1.00) na na 7.22 10.08 13.19*

2001 7.41 7.6 12.4 0.44(1.03) 2.33(3.54)* 1.4 7.85 9.91 13.82

2003-04 8.14 na na 0.39(1.29) na na 9.01 13.22 14.48*

Notes: 1. Figures in parentheses pertains to all technical & vocational both degree, diploma &

certificate courses. 2. na=non available or estimated.

3. *denotes estimated figures. 4. SES figures are provisional for years 1991 onwards

Source Studies sponsored by UGC, Undertaken by Ravi Sriwastwa, S. Sinha, Sudhansu,

Sarswati Raju, Ameresh Dubey, Duraiswamy (2006)


21/27

21

Table 2 ( c) : Enrolment by Major Streams of

Higher Education from various sources (in lakhs)

Years Graduate & Above Technical/Vocational Total Higher Education

Sources SES NSSO Census SES NSSO Census SES NSSO Census

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1983 28.7 51.1 na 2.0(4.7) 7.8 na 30.7 58.9 na1987-88 34.6 65.0 na 3.5(7.0) 9.17 na 38.0 74.1 na

1991 43.3 na 102.2 4.0(8.2) na 3.8@ 44.7 na 106

1993-94 44.5 65.7 na 4.6(9.2) 24.55 na 49.1 90.2 115.2*

1999-00 77.3 85.7 na 5.2(11.5) 25.23 na 82.4 110.9 154.3*

2001 86.3 88.5 144.3 5.3(13.1) 27.4(41.2) 16.6** 91.4 115.3 160.9

2003-04 100.1 na na 4.8(15.9) na na 104.9 161.1 182.3*

@Technical & non-technical diploma & certificate courses

Source Studies sponsored by UGC, Undertaken by Ravi Sriwastwa, S. Sinha, Sudhansu,

Sarswati Raju, Ameresh Dubey and Duraiswamy ( 2006)

Table : 4(b)Groups with lower enrolment ratio in Higher Education -1999-2000

Some stylized facts (Figure in %)

Social Groups

Category SC ST OBC Non-SC/

ST. OBC

All

Hindu 4.88 6.16 7.06 19.71 10.44

Muslim 1.83 4.41 3.94 5.91 5.34

Religion

Sikh 1.81 NA NA 18.94 11.28

Gender Female (Total) 3.16 5.57 4.70 16.52 8.05Rural (Female) 1.64 4.75 2.08 7.10 3.56

Rural Rural 3.30 5.15 4.11 10.58 5.72

Poor 1.69 1.32 2.42 5.57 2.43PoorPoor Rural 1.31 0.89 1.25 2.50 1.30

1.63

0.67 1.16 1.93 1.41Wage Labor (Rural)

(a) Agriculture(b) Non-Agril. 1.52 0.91 4.26 4.02 2.91

Occupa-tion

Wage Labour (Urban) 1.53 3.34 4.30 3.26

Poor Wage Labour Household(Rural)

(a) Agriculture(b) Non-agri.

0.01

00

0.91

00

0.47

.52

0.93

1.08

0.86

0.37

Poor Wage Labour (Urban) 2.61 1.93 2.70 1.80 2.38

Landless (Total) Rural 2.96 11.46 4.15 8.85 5.59Landless (Poor) Rural 1.05 1.38 .73 .85 .94

Total 10.00%

Source: Based on Studies Sponsored by UGC ,2006


22/27

22

Table : 5 (a)

Quality estimates of college sector under UGC - 2006

Colleges (as on 31.3.2005) Nos.

% of

previous row

% to total

colleges (14000)

under UGC'spurview

Total no. of colleges 17,625

Under UGC's purview (about) 14000 79.43%

Included u/s 2(f) UGC Act 5589 40% 40%

Included u/s 12(B) UGC Act 5273 94.35% 38%

Funded by UGC (X Plan) 4870 92.36%

35%

(65 not funded)

Accredited by NAAC 2780 57.08% 20%

Colleges with scores, 60% 2506 90.14% 17.90%

Table 5(b)

Measurement of Excellence Universities, Department & College Sector by UGC

SchemeNo. of

Institutions

Total Central and State Universities

234

State Universities under 12(B)

164

University with Potential for Excellence 9

Centres (specialized theme) with

Potential for Excellence 12

Establishment of new Centres / Institutes

(Establishing during IX Plan) 5

Special Assistance Programme

477Colleges with Potential for Excellence 97


23/27

23

Table : 6

NAAC Ranking - 2006

Total Colleges 14000

1) A++, A+, A (A) 245 High Quality 9%

2) B++, B, B- (B) 1785 Medium Quality 66%

C++, C, C- (C) 668+ Low Quality 24 %3)

Total 2698 100%

4) Collage not assessed (

self financing and not

permanently affiliated)

11302 Grade not known

(presumably low quality)

Table 7Universities Under 12 (b)

Total Under

12 (b)

Total Universities 363

(a) Central Universities 20 Under Section 12(B) 18

(b) State Universities 217 Under Section 12(B) of

UGC

164

(c) Deemed Universities 106 Under Section 12(B) 24


24/27

24

Table 8Some aspects of availability of facilities and quality in select institutions of Higher Education, 2002-2004

NAAC Grades

Indicators A &Above

B++ &

B+

B only C++, C+

& C

Non-

Accredited

Total

No. of Sample Colleges 110 547 298 233 285 1473

STR (Student Teacher Ratio)20.4 31.8 28.6 28.5 25.2 25.0

STR by Permanent Teachers 29.8 31.8 38.1 35.8 35.6 33.5

No. of Books per student 9.5 10.7 6.4 7.4 7.0 8.8

No. of Books per college 15215 13921 7019 6504 6748 9882

No. of Journals per college 22.2 13.0 6.1 4.4 4.0 10.0

Students per Computer 145.2 143.8 251.3 546.7 202.7 258.0

Average no. of Enrolled

students per college

1603 1301 954 885 960 1140

Organised

Workshops/Seminars

54.5 27.2 17.4 17.4 20.0 24.3

Facilities available (percent colleges having)

Library 94.5 91.6 90.9 82.4 90.2 90.0

Computer Centre 86.4 83.7 76.8 64.0 74.7 77.7Health Centre 74.5 53.7 48.7 36.4 48.1 50.4

Sports facilities 92.7 88.8 91.6 84.9 88.1 88.9

Hostels 72.7 55.9 39.6 41.9 40.4 48.7

Guest House 44.5 30.9 23.5 21.7 22.8 27.4

Teachers Housing 47.3 36.9 19.8 18.4 20.7 28.2

Canteen 80.0 77.1 74.8 49.3 64.6 70.1

Common Room (Day

Scholars)

30.9 23.8 19.1 9.7 16.1 19.7

Welfare Schemes 49.1 45.5 48.0 35.4 42.8 44.2

Gymnasium 8.2 7.1 3.0 3.6 4.2 5.3

Auditorium/Seminar Rooms20.9 11.7 7.7 7.1 9.1 10.4

Source : Self Assessment Reports submitted with NAAC and NAAC Grades.

Enrolment by Rural & Urban 2003 (NSS)

1. Rural 7.76

2. Urban 27.20

Total 13.22


25/27

25

Enrolment by Caste - 2003 (NSS)

1. ST 5.00

2. SC 7.51

3. OBC 11.34

4. Others 24.89

Total : 13.22

Enrolment by Religious Group - 2003 (NSS)

1. Hindu 12.00

2. Muslim 8.19

3. Others 30.87

Total : 13.22

Enrolment by Gender - 2003 (NSS)

1. Male 15.25

2. Female 11.02

Total : 13.22


26/27

26

Least enrolment by Religion - early 2000 (NSS)

Social Groups (Figures in %)

SC ST OBC Others All

Hindu 4.88 6.16 7.06 19.71 10

Muslim 1.83 4.41 3.94 5.91 5.3

Sikh 1.81 NA NA 18.94 11

Least enrolment by Gender - 2000


Female

(Total)

3.16 5.57 4.70 16.5 8.05

Rural

(Female)

1.64 4.75 2.08 7.10 3.56

Least enrolment by Poor - 2000


Poor 1.69 1.32 2.42 5.57 2.43

Poor

Rural

1.31 0.89 1.25 2.50 1.30

Least enrolment by Wage Labour - 2000

Rural SC ST OBC Others All

Agril. 1.63 0.67 1.16 1.93 1.41

Non-Agril. 1.52 0.91 4.26 4.02 2.91

Urban 1.00 1.53 3.34 4.30 3.26


27/27

Least enrolment by Poor Wage Labour - 2000

Rural SC ST OBC Others All

Agril. 0.01 0.91 0.47 0.93 0.86

Non-Agril. 00 00 0.52 1.08 0.37

Urban 2.61 1.93 2.70 1.80 2.38

Distribution of teachers by nature of appointment and College Grades (2002-2004)

NAAC Grades

A &

Above

B++ &

B+

B only C++, C+

& C

Non-

Accredited

Total

No. of Colleges 110 547 298 233 285 1473

PERMANENT 68.57 76.20 74.94 79.79 70.87 74.54

TEMPORARY 22.92 15.24 15.83 11.44 16.79 16.16

PART-TIME 8.51 8.56 9.23 9.78 12.34 9.29

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Percentage distribution of teachers by qualification in various grades of colleges 2002-2004

NAAC Grades

Nature of Appointment Qualification A &Above

B++ &

B+

B only C++,

C+, & C

Non-

Accredited

Total

Ph.D 35.9 33.0 26.6 28.6 28.8 31.0M.Phil. 20.6 19.7 18.4 17.9 20.2 19.4

PG 43.0 45.9 54.7 52.0 50.7 48.6

Others 0.4 1.4 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.9

PERMANENT

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ph.D 10.1 11.4 6.9 8.2 8.3 9.7

M.Phil. 7.9 8.6 6.7 8.7 7.3 7.9

PG 81.2 77.7 85.7 81.5 83.9 81.0

Others 0.8 2.3 0.6 1.6 0.5 1.4

TEMPORARY

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ph.D 9.3 11.5 6.8 13.2 5.8 9.4

M.Phil. 7.0 6.6 3.5 4.3 8.0 6.2

PG 83.2 80.6 88.8 81.9 84.1 83.2

Others 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 2.0 1.2

PART-TIME

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ph.D 28.1 28.0 21.9 24.9 22.4 25.6

M.Phil. 16.7 17.0 15.3 15.6 16.5 16.3

PG 54.7 53.5 62.4 58.1 60.6 57.1

Others 0.5 1.5 0.4 1.4 0.6 1.0

TOTAL TEACHERS

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No. of Sample Colleges 110 547 298 233 285 1473


Documents

Emerging Issues in Higher Education Sector